Author Topic: The RAWK Film Thread  (Read 3448492 times)

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55000 on: August 7, 2022, 08:18:05 am »
Thanks,will give it a watch then. :)

Was going to be a hard pass on this one because the language thing irks me so,much prefer how they handled it on films like Apocalypto.

the language thing is an issue, im like you, to me you have to pick one or it becomes a bit silly when and when you dont use native speaking - eg in last of the mohicans, when the three natives (im including lewis in that) are alone, why are they speaking english? obviously they wouldnt be, then all of a sudden they will when english speakers are around them, yeah inconsistent

so there is that in this but by and large it's not as bad as LOTM, cos for the most part they just go with english with a smattering of comanche

it's defo worth a watch, i dont score stuff normally but if i was, to give you an idea, i'd give 8/10, and the only other Predator movie that would score higher for me would be the original (tho P2 is an 8, and remarkably i thought alien vs predator was good, i thought that would be a shower of shite)

i saw this had dropped a while back and passed on it myself cos the franchise had panned so hard, but you know, wanted something to watch and thought fuck it

so if any of you like the original, i would encourage you to watch this, it aint perfect but im confident you'll be pleasantly surprised
« Last Edit: August 7, 2022, 08:21:58 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline BER

  • Goat fondler.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,286
  • FLOSS IS BOSS!!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55001 on: August 7, 2022, 05:58:24 pm »
Language thing didn't bother me, they skirted that nicely by using the French settlers instead of the English.

Offline Buck Pete

  • GV66 LJF for short. King Kong Balls. Bathes in peat. Partial to a walnut whip. Gets wet for 24/7 but disappointed Chopper. On the mortgage blacklist. Too tight to really be called a
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,086
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55002 on: August 7, 2022, 06:32:39 pm »
In regards to Prey, What is this "language thing" you all refer to guys?

Heard good reports about this but just curious.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55003 on: August 7, 2022, 08:11:39 pm »
In regards to Prey, What is this "language thing" you all refer to guys?

Heard good reports about this but just curious.

Basically Prey was intended to be in the Comanche language but when Disney bought Fox they decided to film it in the English language, interspersed with lines of Comanche dialogue.  I haven’t seen the English version so I have no idea if it detracts from immersion or anything.

They also created a Comanche dub with English subtitles which I have seen, it was how it was originally intended so thought I’d watch it that way first.  Disney have both versions.

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,617
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55004 on: August 7, 2022, 10:11:06 pm »
It’s a brilliant film. The best in the franchise after the original - and better than it in a few ways. The language thing irked me a bit - wish I’d known about the Comanche dub.

Offline Buck Pete

  • GV66 LJF for short. King Kong Balls. Bathes in peat. Partial to a walnut whip. Gets wet for 24/7 but disappointed Chopper. On the mortgage blacklist. Too tight to really be called a
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,086
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55005 on: August 7, 2022, 11:49:07 pm »
Basically Prey was intended to be in the Comanche language but when Disney bought Fox they decided to film it in the English language, interspersed with lines of Comanche dialogue.  I haven’t seen the English version so I have no idea if it detracts from immersion or anything.

They also created a Comanche dub with English subtitles which I have seen, it was how it was originally intended so thought I’d watch it that way first.  Disney have both versions.

Cheers

Think I too will go with the Comanche dub and subtitles


Online Crosby Nick

  • He was super funny. Used to do these super hilarious puns
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 111,211
  • Poultry in Motion
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55006 on: August 8, 2022, 12:09:38 am »
Just finished Thirteen Lives on Prime - the story of the Thai boys football team who got trapped in a cave.

Just brilliant - incredible story, really well told.

Colin Farrell, Vigo Mortensen, Joel Edgerton the lead cast.

Just watched that. Thought it was really good too. Only in the last 10 minutes did I realise it was Viggo Mortensen! Was thinking he looked familiar all the way through it!

Offline rushyman

  • Not A Badgeman. Fuck him. Please. Someone. Anyone! But not Jonathan Pearce.....
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 59,421
  • On Halloween, parents send kids out lookin like me
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55007 on: August 8, 2022, 12:41:39 am »
Just watched Prey

Excellent effort for me
If you don't limit yourself with bad thoughts, you can fly

Jurgen Klopp

Online tubby

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,140
  • Destroyed Cowboy
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55008 on: August 8, 2022, 08:51:47 am »
Prey was a very easy watch, lovely scenery and good action.  A little heavy-handed at times and the ending with the helmet was really stupid, but a fun movie all round.
Sit down, shock is better taken with bent knees.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,339
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55009 on: August 8, 2022, 03:34:20 pm »
Prey, latest in the predator films and well, fuck me, it's a good one

funnily enough with the talk earlier in the thread about franchises suffering cos there's always the desire to go bigger badder more more more and forget about the story and the writing, here Predator with Prey have done the opposite

if what has gone before didn't exist and this was the first Predator movie im sure it would be thought of as a top movie (it's not as good as the original tho)

story is good, writing is decent, cast is good

there's the language thing, which is always a difficult call how it is implemented so im not going to criticise it on that, even way bigger films like Last of the Mohicans, which i love,  could be pulled up on that (inconsistent in it's choices where it uses english or native language)

also a shoutout to the music, really good (totally borrowing from the afterforementioned Jones/eldeman soundtrack, granted, then again they borrowed from others...)

It just monumentally pissed me and the missus off

How fucking dark was it?

Our house at present hasn't got black out curtains or a subterranean cellar where the 1,024 versions of black can be seen in pristine detail. We live in a house. With windows and shit.

90% of the film was spent watching a completely black screen with the off random object appearing for a couple of seconds while someone mooched about/explosions went off or shrieking happened.

0/10

Turn the fucking lights on you fucking shithouses.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Online AndyMuller

  • Has always wondered how to do it. Rice, Rice, Baby. Wants to have George Michael. Would batter A@A at karate.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,154
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55010 on: August 8, 2022, 03:46:11 pm »
It just monumentally pissed me and the missus off

How fucking dark was it?

Our house at present hasn't got black out curtains or a subterranean cellar where the 1,024 versions of black can be seen in pristine detail. We live in a house. With windows and shit.

90% of the film was spent watching a completely black screen with the off random object appearing for a couple of seconds while someone mooched about/explosions went off or shrieking happened.

0/10

Turn the fucking lights on you fucking shithouses.

This man has way too much edge.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55011 on: August 8, 2022, 03:57:45 pm »
This man has way too much edge.

Either that or a poorly calibrated television. 

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,927
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55012 on: August 8, 2022, 04:03:07 pm »
I've heard Lost in Translation is great with some proper blackout curtains.

Online Henry Gale

  • Margot Robbie Stalker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,706
  • My name is Henry Gale. I'm from Minnesota.
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55013 on: August 8, 2022, 04:30:11 pm »
Think I got about an hour into Prey before I turned it off, Absolute shite. You're supposed to cheer on the main character but I really wanted her to get killed the annoying little spoiled brat throwing her toys out the pram because she don't get her own way all the time.


Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55014 on: August 9, 2022, 05:11:16 am »
It just monumentally pissed me and the missus off

How fucking dark was it?

Our house at present hasn't got black out curtains or a subterranean cellar where the 1,024 versions of black can be seen in pristine detail. We live in a house. With windows and shit.

90% of the film was spent watching a completely black screen with the off random object appearing for a couple of seconds while someone mooched about/explosions went off or shrieking happened.

0/10

Turn the fucking lights on you fucking shithouses.

if you downloaded it at the 'usual places', this could be the problem - i suffer a similar amount when a film is largely in the dark or at night, oojason posted somewhere in the thread about this and how to get around it to some degree, as it seems a problem with downloaded stuff off the net

you may want to look that post up

Think I got about an hour into Prey before I turned it off, Absolute shite. You're supposed to cheer on the main character but I really wanted her to get killed the annoying little spoiled brat throwing her toys out the pram because she don't get her own way all the time.

i think at the beginning they lean into that aspect a bit much, granted, but it doesn't take long to move on

Spoiler
when it's more about she's on to something but the others wont listen (a familiar scenario in movies) - yes, it's partly cos she's a chick (and partly cos it sounds fantastical to them, which it would be) but they dont beat you over the head with it imo like so much shit does today, i felt they made the point and for the most part moved on when other shit would keep shoving it in your face, once the rest were aware they didn't give a flying fuck she was a chick  ;D
[close]

i liked her a lot, tho i dont feel the film cared whether you liked her or not, it wasn't about liking her for me
« Last Edit: August 9, 2022, 05:24:28 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,339
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55015 on: August 9, 2022, 07:47:39 am »
if you downloaded it at the 'usual places', this could be the problem - i suffer a similar amount when a film is largely in the dark or at night, oojason posted somewhere in the thread about this and how to get around it to some degree, as it seems a problem with downloaded stuff off the net

you may want to look that post up

i think at the beginning they lean into that aspect a bit much, granted, but it doesn't take long to move on

Spoiler
when it's more about she's on to something but the others wont listen (a familiar scenario in movies) - yes, it's partly cos she's a chick (and partly cos it sounds fantastical to them, which it would be) but they dont beat you over the head with it imo like so much shit does today, i felt they made the point and for the most part moved on when other shit would keep shoving it in your face, once the rest were aware they didn't give a flying fuck she was a chick  ;D
[close]

i liked her a lot, tho i dont feel the film cared whether you liked her or not, it wasn't about liking her for me

I subscribe to Disney+ and it's streaming in UHD but isn't visible because it's dark and I live in an actual house
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Online tubby

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,140
  • Destroyed Cowboy
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55016 on: August 9, 2022, 08:05:54 am »
Yeah we had to wait till the sun was gone before we continued watching it, the bits in the woods at night were too dark otherwise.
Sit down, shock is better taken with bent knees.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55017 on: August 9, 2022, 02:03:59 pm »
I subscribe to Disney+ and it's streaming in UHD but isn't visible because it's dark and I live in an actual house

an actual house, you say, well there's your problem
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55018 on: August 9, 2022, 02:24:23 pm »
I watched Prey around 7pm, curtains weren’t drawn or anything, looked absolutely fine to me.

I enjoyed Prey, but it’s not a masterpiece or anything. Solid 90 minutes of entertainment, about as 7/10 as it gets in my opinion.

Predator 2 is a better, and more interesting film.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,339
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55019 on: August 9, 2022, 02:38:54 pm »
I watched Prey around 7pm, curtains weren’t drawn or anything, looked absolutely fine to me.

I enjoyed Prey, but it’s not a masterpiece or anything. Solid 90 minutes of entertainment, about as 7/10 as it gets in my opinion.

Predator 2 is a better, and more interesting film.




Look at the detail!
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,339
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55020 on: August 9, 2022, 02:39:21 pm »
an actual house, you say, well there's your problem

If I lived in a Crypt or in outer space then I'd have been dandy
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55021 on: August 9, 2022, 03:11:28 pm »
So, 90% of people here. No problem. A particular person had a problem the overwhelming majority didn’t have. Shocked to my core.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,339
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55022 on: August 9, 2022, 03:40:53 pm »
So, 90% of people here. No problem. A particular person had a problem the overwhelming majority didn’t have. Shocked to my core.

To be fair, the back of the house faces South, so we get a load of sunshine in the summer months and we have an old-style conservatory with a glass roof, so not much light getting cut down.

Getting some work done and adding a dark roof (with lights) and adding a curtain between the rooms, so that should help the cinematic summer spectacular viewings.

And Tubby is in my corner. Bless you Tubby one and all!
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55023 on: August 9, 2022, 03:56:13 pm »
Sounds pretty cool. Luckily our front room has always been cool, lots of trees and shit. When you actually do get to see it, interesting to see what you think. I thought it was serviceable, I’m a bit bewildered by the glowing reviews. A decent film, that’s what I’d put on the poster.

Online AndyMuller

  • Has always wondered how to do it. Rice, Rice, Baby. Wants to have George Michael. Would batter A@A at karate.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,154
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55024 on: August 9, 2022, 03:59:04 pm »
I watched Prey around 7pm, curtains weren’t drawn or anything, looked absolutely fine to me.

I enjoyed Prey, but it’s not a masterpiece or anything. Solid 90 minutes of entertainment, about as 7/10 as it gets in my opinion.

Predator 2 is a better, and more interesting film.

Predator 2 is underrated to me personally.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55025 on: August 9, 2022, 04:02:08 pm »
Predator 2 is underrated to me personally.

Predator 2 is great.

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,927
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55026 on: August 9, 2022, 05:49:31 pm »
Yeah, overall I liked Prey, with several reservations though. It was fun and appropriately gnarly. Still, I can't deny there were several things that bothered me, which if different, could have made for a much better movie.

Spoiler
The choice of revealing the Predator from the start is a bad one for me, even though I understand their logic. "It's a Predator movie, everyone knows how he looks like and what he is", I still think it's severely flawed.

One of the main reasons why the first one works so well, it's because of how patiently they build up the menace from the Predator. We know full well there's some weird alien shit going on. I mean, the first shot of the movie is of a spaceship going to earth. We also have those thermal vision scenes scattered over the first third of the movie, which also reveals it while helping build up the tension. It's subtle, genuinely scary and doesn't undermine the storyline. 

Here, the choice to show the Predator from the start kills any sense of suspense or mystery going forward, which is something you don't know want in a movie about a space travelling alpha hunter. Second, it severely undermines the build-up of the main character, when the movie is consistently cutting to the more intriguing Predator scenes hunting animals. It also telegraphs what the real conflict is going to be, so the stakes in the begging, when the main character is learning to hunt, are just not there.

It's also not a very well-paced, or dare I say directed (apart from the action scenes) movie. At times it just seems like a collection of set pieces without much-connecting tissue between them. It also has a pretty bad sense of geography and space, which the director tries to hide with extreme close-ups with very shallow depths of field. It might look "nice" to some, but it just makes it very confusing for a spectator. Looking "nice" or "cool" is something the movie seems to prefer way too often, instead of more suitably choices.

It just looks too damn clean, pretty and modern for such a gritty story which is supposed to transpire in the 1700s. The scenery was certainly stunning but those beautiful panoramic shots didn't seem to fit the tone of a Predator movie, at all. It looked like something out of Dances with Wolves, but grainless and more artificial. I hate that "glossy look" most direct-to-streaming movies and shows seem to go for. There were some shots of the brother of the protagonist, where he looked like he was a video game character or something. I don't understand how can anyone think that looks good. The CGI was pretty shoddy too, and some of the aerial shots looked like they were made by some cheap commercial drones. It kind of betrayed the movie's budget.

Still, there were several things I enjoyed about the movie though which probably slightly outweigh the negatives.

First, I really liked the setting and the premise of the movie, even though its potential wasn't fully realised. I think it was a very intriguing and fresh way to inject some life into a very stale franchise.

I liked the main character and her brother. They are no Arnie and there's nothing too memorable about them, but they were likeable and have a nice relationship with each other, which made me care about their journey. I also appreciated that they focused on her training extensively, and make her fail a few times earlier on. It doesn't make her transformation into an unstoppable ninja later on completely believable, but it helps... a bit. The dog was also great.

The action scenes were mostly very well done when you had a clear idea of what was happening. The predator hunting scenes, even though I think detract from the main character storylines, as individual scenes are pretty cool. The first fight between the Comanches and the Predator was also great. I liked that they made the Predator not completely overpowered and that we even saw animals and humans being capable of hurting him, even though it felt more like self-sabotaging than anything.

The movie gets incrementally silly towards the last third though, but the action is still pretty thrilling and makes it work. The way the main character "gets" the Predator though... that was just some stupid lazy fucking nonsense. I'm not even sure exactly what happened other than the main character magically learning how the predator mask work and using it against him, with an implausible amount of good luck, planning and the Predator becoming a fucking idiot. It really left me with a bad taste, which is unfortunate because I enjoyed the movie for the most part, even with all the problems I mentioned.
[close]
« Last Edit: August 9, 2022, 06:17:52 pm by Lastrador »

Offline [new username under construction]

  • Poster formerly know as shadowbane. Never lost his head whilst others panicked. Fucking kopite!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,284
  • Insert something awesome here!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55027 on: August 9, 2022, 06:32:15 pm »
Predator 2 is great.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/RZU4c3nN05c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/RZU4c3nN05c</a>


Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55028 on: August 9, 2022, 07:57:28 pm »
Yeah, overall I liked Prey, with several reservations though. It was fun and appropriately gnarly. Still, I can't deny there were several things that bothered me, which if different, could have made for a much better movie..........

It just looks too damn clean, pretty and modern for such a gritty story which is supposed to transpire in the 1700s. The scenery was certainly stunning but those beautiful panoramic shots didn't seem to fit the tone of a Predator movie, at all. It looked like something out of Dances with Wolves, but grainless and more artificial.


you make a lot of points and im certainly not going over them all but this one stood out as puzzling

i dont understand what you're saying here

it's the modern era but before the industrial revolution and it's shot in pristine canadian wilderness (not comanche territory btw) and yet it is 'grainless and more artificial' (than *Dances with Wolves), how is this prime wilderness artificial? If the director wanted to add noise for tone (ie cinematic camera choices, which it appears you feel it needs), isn't adding 'grain' artificial?

the original film is set in central american rainforest (actually shot in mexico) and apart from the encampment scenes at the beginning, all i recall is lush jungle, one wooden bridge and waterfalls

yep, puzzled by that one

*filmed in south dakota, dances with wolves is actually set during the age of steam
« Last Edit: August 10, 2022, 01:53:06 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Hazell

  • Ultimate Movie Night Draft Winner 2017. King - or Queen - of Mystery. Hyzenthlay. The 5th Benitle's sex conch.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 76,505
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55029 on: August 10, 2022, 06:22:10 pm »
Prey is available with a Comanche dub, the cast and crew are on record saying it's the definitive way to watch it, the original script had 'All dialogue in Comanche' printed across the top of it, the idea was scrapped when Disney bought Fox.

I can't see the Comache Dub being available when I go into it on Disney+? Do you know how you get it?
We have to change from doubter to believer. Now.

Online Agent99

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,202
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55030 on: August 10, 2022, 06:35:00 pm »
I can't see the Comache Dub being available when I go into it on Disney+? Do you know how you get it?
If you click on the film it opens up the main window to play it. There is a section at the bottom of the screen showing 'Suggested', 'Extra' and 'Details'. If you click on 'Extras' it should open up an option to view a trailer and play the comanche version.

Offline Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,285
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55031 on: August 10, 2022, 06:47:25 pm »
I can't see the Comache Dub being available when I go into it on Disney+? Do you know how you get it?

Strangely it's listed as one of the extras.

Offline Hazell

  • Ultimate Movie Night Draft Winner 2017. King - or Queen - of Mystery. Hyzenthlay. The 5th Benitle's sex conch.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 76,505
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55032 on: August 10, 2022, 06:52:06 pm »
If you click on the film it opens up the main window to play it. There is a section at the bottom of the screen showing 'Suggested', 'Extra' and 'Details'. If you click on 'Extras' it should open up an option to view a trailer and play the comanche version.

Strangely it's listed as one of the extras.

Got it, thanks  :thumbup
We have to change from doubter to believer. Now.

Offline Hazell

  • Ultimate Movie Night Draft Winner 2017. King - or Queen - of Mystery. Hyzenthlay. The 5th Benitle's sex conch.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 76,505
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55033 on: August 11, 2022, 12:12:30 am »
Yeah, overall I liked Prey, with several reservations though. It was fun and appropriately gnarly. Still, I can't deny there were several things that bothered me, which if different, could have made for a much better movie.

Spoiler
The choice of revealing the Predator from the start is a bad one for me, even though I understand their logic. "It's a Predator movie, everyone knows how he looks like and what he is", I still think it's severely flawed.

One of the main reasons why the first one works so well, it's because of how patiently they build up the menace from the Predator. We know full well there's some weird alien shit going on. I mean, the first shot of the movie is of a spaceship going to earth. We also have those thermal vision scenes scattered over the first third of the movie, which also reveals it while helping build up the tension. It's subtle, genuinely scary and doesn't undermine the storyline. 

Here, the choice to show the Predator from the start kills any sense of suspense or mystery going forward, which is something you don't know want in a movie about a space travelling alpha hunter. Second, it severely undermines the build-up of the main character, when the movie is consistently cutting to the more intriguing Predator scenes hunting animals. It also telegraphs what the real conflict is going to be, so the stakes in the begging, when the main character is learning to hunt, are just not there.

It's also not a very well-paced, or dare I say directed (apart from the action scenes) movie. At times it just seems like a collection of set pieces without much-connecting tissue between them. It also has a pretty bad sense of geography and space, which the director tries to hide with extreme close-ups with very shallow depths of field. It might look "nice" to some, but it just makes it very confusing for a spectator. Looking "nice" or "cool" is something the movie seems to prefer way too often, instead of more suitably choices.

It just looks too damn clean, pretty and modern for such a gritty story which is supposed to transpire in the 1700s. The scenery was certainly stunning but those beautiful panoramic shots didn't seem to fit the tone of a Predator movie, at all. It looked like something out of Dances with Wolves, but grainless and more artificial. I hate that "glossy look" most direct-to-streaming movies and shows seem to go for. There were some shots of the brother of the protagonist, where he looked like he was a video game character or something. I don't understand how can anyone think that looks good. The CGI was pretty shoddy too, and some of the aerial shots looked like they were made by some cheap commercial drones. It kind of betrayed the movie's budget.

Still, there were several things I enjoyed about the movie though which probably slightly outweigh the negatives.

First, I really liked the setting and the premise of the movie, even though its potential wasn't fully realised. I think it was a very intriguing and fresh way to inject some life into a very stale franchise.

I liked the main character and her brother. They are no Arnie and there's nothing too memorable about them, but they were likeable and have a nice relationship with each other, which made me care about their journey. I also appreciated that they focused on her training extensively, and make her fail a few times earlier on. It doesn't make her transformation into an unstoppable ninja later on completely believable, but it helps... a bit. The dog was also great.

The action scenes were mostly very well done when you had a clear idea of what was happening. The predator hunting scenes, even though I think detract from the main character storylines, as individual scenes are pretty cool. The first fight between the Comanches and the Predator was also great. I liked that they made the Predator not completely overpowered and that we even saw animals and humans being capable of hurting him, even though it felt more like self-sabotaging than anything.

The movie gets incrementally silly towards the last third though, but the action is still pretty thrilling and makes it work. The way the main character "gets" the Predator though... that was just some stupid lazy fucking nonsense. I'm not even sure exactly what happened other than the main character magically learning how the predator mask work and using it against him, with an implausible amount of good luck, planning and the Predator becoming a fucking idiot. It really left me with a bad taste, which is unfortunate because I enjoyed the movie for the most part, even with all the problems I mentioned.
[close]

Interesting post mate. I just watched it today and I liked it a lot. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't bother me but I've only ever seen the original and while I like that one too, it's nowhere near any of my favourite films so maybe that was a factor. I like that it was something different to the original and has a more modern sensibility, even though, as mentioned above, it was a little heavy handed (which didn't really bother me).

Just on your last paragraph:

Spoiler
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it, although I struggled somewhat with what was actually happening on screen so might need to watch it again. Getting how the Predator's mask works and using it against him in the manner she did did seem really implausible though, which like you say, was unfortunate. But it didn't spoil the film for me. Maybe because I like Amber Midthunder, she was great in Legion and was here as well.
[close]

And the comments about it being too dark, I didn't get that at all, it was absolutely fine for me.
We have to change from doubter to believer. Now.

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,927
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55034 on: August 11, 2022, 09:45:37 pm »
Interesting post mate. I just watched it today and I liked it a lot. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't bother me but I've only ever seen the original and while I like that one too, it's nowhere near any of my favourite films so maybe that was a factor. I like that it was something different to the original and has a more modern sensibility, even though, as mentioned above, it was a little heavy handed (which didn't really bother me).

Just on your last paragraph:

Spoiler
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it, although I struggled somewhat with what was actually happening on screen so might need to watch it again. Getting how the Predator's mask works and using it against him in the manner she did did seem really implausible though, which like you say, was unfortunate. But it didn't spoil the film for me. Maybe because I like Amber Midthunder, she was great in Legion and was here as well.
[close]

And the comments about it being too dark, I didn't get that at all, it was absolutely fine for me.

Oh, I really enjoyed it too. I might have been too harsh on it in my previous post, but it was more out of frustration for what I think could have been a much better film. I admit I'm probably in the minority on some of those criticisms (especially the most technical stuff), and I understand that for most people those things don't take away from their enjoyment, but I'm a bit of a purist, so what can I do.  ;D

Predator is probably my favourite action/sci-fi movie of all time, but I'm completely fine with them going their own way. As I said, I really liked the premise, the setting, the cast and most of the action. The minimalistic story mostly works for me. In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

It seems to me that most modern movie makers, especially the ones premiering on streaming platforms, have this idea that films must look beautiful and pristine, no matter what the story is or demands. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the idea that any aesthetic choices must be made in favour of telling a story. In Prey, those choices particularly bothered me, because it's a gritty action movie set in the harsh 1700s Northern Great Plains made to look like a beautiful modern commercial. I'm sure these were corporate demands more than artistic choices made by the filmmakers though.

This overly saturated and clean to the point of sterility aesthetic of the movie, might look great on your OLED screen, but does it work in favour of the story? In my opinion, it doesn't, and not only that but it actively detracts from the movie's immersion. It's at odds with the time period, the harsh and dangerous environment it's trying to represent and most importantly, the nature of the film. There's a tonal dissonance between the story and the way the filmmaker chooses to convey it.

When you look at some great period pieces like "There Will be Blood" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." to name a couple of modern examples, they have this harsh, grainy look to them, that works in favour of the immersion. Because whether we like it or not, our brains associate those kind of images with older periods. They have some beautiful shots in there too, but they are not trying to look pretty at every shot like Prey does. The grainy aspect look also adds an element of weight and tactility to a film. It makes them look cinematic. Prey doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a video game.

it's the modern era but before the industrial revolution and it's shot in pristine canadian wilderness (not comanche territory btw) and yet it is 'grainless and more artificial' (than *Dances with Wolves), how is this prime wilderness artificial? If the director wanted to add noise for tone (ie cinematic camera choices, which it appears you feel it needs), isn't adding 'grain' artificial?

Those beautiful vista shots I called grainless and artificial, are not artificial because of what they show, they look artificial because of the way they are so overly enhanced in post-production and possible CGIed to some extent, to the point they look fake and weightless. They also serve no purpose other than showing off their production values. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, it makes sense for the movie to frequently cut to those types of vista shots, as it's a slow-paced drama about a man that wanted to see the beauty of the American frontier. In an action movie that's about a tribe of Comache Indian fighting against an intergalactic alpha hunter, what's the purpose of those endless beauty shots?

Maybe if the film only focused on the Comanches in the begging, it would make sense to give us a sense of their relationship with their environment, and to mark a shift in tone when the Predator appears. But given that we're frequently interrupted with scenes of the Predator from the begging, it kind of makes them pointless. 

And no, you don't have to artificially add grain in post-production to have a grainy look. The easiest way would have been to shoot it on film, in something like 16mm, which they probably didn't have the budget to it. But there are also ways to have more grainy shots with digital cameras, using higher ISO levels. To be correct, every camera captures some level of grain, even some of the most modern ones. What they never look like, is as clean and pristine as they do in Prey, that's for sure.

the original film is set in central american rainforest (actually shot in mexico) and apart from the encampment scenes at the beginning, all i recall is lush jungle, one wooden bridge and waterfalls

You're right in that the original Predator was shot in a Mexican jungle, but that's about all you're right. The original Predator is an ugly, harsh and grainy-looking movie. It's frequently under-exposed, with a limited colour palette and it never tries to draw the spectator's attention to the beauty of its surroundings. On the contrary, every image tries to convey the harshness and danger of the jungle. That's why almost every shot is at ground level with the group, and not from afar like in Prey, pretty and secure.

I'll end up by saying, that I understand and respect people liking those aspects of modern films. Personally, I detest the way most modern movies, and TV shows for that matter, try to look as pretty and pristine as possible even when at the expense of the story. For me is one of the clearest indications of how big corporations are trying to kill any sense of artistry or personality in modern entertainment.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2022, 09:58:41 pm by Lastrador »

Offline afc tukrish

  • How long for them sausages? Maggie May's Mythical Turkish Delight. RAWK's Expert Sausage Monster! Oakley Cannonier is fucking boss. Likes blowing his friends and undoing their nuts? Who nose?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,762
  • This looks like a nice spot...
    • Flat Back Four
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55035 on: August 11, 2022, 11:56:09 pm »
In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

Think you did a really good job explaining your position, and didn't cut down differing viewpoints while so doing.
Since haste quite Schorsch, but Liverpool are genuine fight pigs...

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55036 on: August 12, 2022, 12:15:07 am »
i disagree with most of that, well not really, that's too sweeping, i understand what you're getting at but you're assuming cos a widlerness is pristine it's not harsh - here's a head's up, all wilderness is harsh, all, no matter the beauty (i recall on its release Last of the Mohicans being criticised in exactly the same way as you see Prey, didn't agree with that assessment, dont agree with this one either)

in short it's as if you're saying the scenery wouldn't have looked like that back then, not that clean, not that pristine but that is clearly wrong, we wouldn't have been able to capture those views back then, but if anything they would've looked even more pristine (i've seen more wildlife docs than i can count, thankfully we still have some pristine wilderness left and you know what, it does looking fucking amazing. now whether you want that for your movie is an aesthetic choice, i think the director did fine, the natives we're living in an incredibly beautiful part of the world and he chose to show it as that

the harsh and gritty nature of Predator in contrast to Prey are the characters more so than scenery - both are harsh challenging environments in different ways (sure, thick jungle is harsher) and i beg to differ that lush jungle isn't pretty (it is in my eyes, on film including Predator and in real life) - contrast the characters of Prey with badass veteran mercenaries and you have a totally different ambience, they bring the gnarly aspect to Predator

and who said anything about adding grain in post production? you actually quote me saying 'cinematic camera choices' when talking about adding grain and then 'school' me on that very thing?   ;D







all pretty to me and a good director making the most of his environs

i've no doubt Predator is shot the way it is cos that's what the director wanted but he is also limited by thick jungle, not a lot of choice there for the majority of his movie, it doesn't lend itself to big open vistas (tho there are wider relatively big type shots when the scenery lends itself), but clearly not in the range of LOTM, DWW and Prey with their more open vistas which allow for that. McTiernan actually said himself that he found jungle uninteresting cinematically cos you can't see anything, with the horizon ending about 4 feet in front of you and they were forever trimming out stuff so he could get long shots

and as you point out, ground level (often tilited up) shots did convey what he wanted in this impenetrable, claustraphobic, world of hurt as blain would say, arguably catching as much of the wilderness he's working with (a clever way to maximise the jungle scenery and the 'problematic' horizon, a smart solution by McTiernan), the director of those other movies did likewise with their movies and environs

you just dont like the fact it looks pretty cos you see that as frivilous/incongruous to the story content, we'll have to disagree on that,
like i said, heard it all before with LOTM, it was wrong then, it's wrong now for me, but it's aesthetics, whenever does that get full agreement? never

btw this isn't me pissing on Predator - i fucking adore that movie, in its genre only second to Carpenter's The Thing for me
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 01:49:27 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Macphisto80

  • The Picasso of RAWK. But wants to shag Charlie Brooker. Go figure! Wants to hear about bi-curious Shauno's fantasies.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,737
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55037 on: August 12, 2022, 12:54:35 am »
Oh, I really enjoyed it too. I might have been too harsh on it in my previous post, but it was more out of frustration for what I think could have been a much better film. I admit I'm probably in the minority on some of those criticisms (especially the most technical stuff), and I understand that for most people those things don't take away from their enjoyment, but I'm a bit of a purist, so what can I do.  ;D

Predator is probably my favourite action/sci-fi movie of all time, but I'm completely fine with them going their own way. As I said, I really liked the premise, the setting, the cast and most of the action. The minimalistic story mostly works for me. In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

It seems to me that most modern movie makers, especially the ones premiering on streaming platforms, have this idea that films must look beautiful and pristine, no matter what the story is or demands. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the idea that any aesthetic choices must be made in favour of telling a story. In Prey, those choices particularly bothered me, because it's a gritty action movie set in the harsh 1700s Northern Great Plains made to look like a beautiful modern commercial. I'm sure these were corporate demands more than artistic choices made by the filmmakers though.

This overly saturated and clean to the point of sterility aesthetic of the movie, might look great on your OLED screen, but does it work in favour of the story? In my opinion, it doesn't, and not only that but it actively detracts from the movie's immersion. It's at odds with the time period, the harsh and dangerous environment it's trying to represent and most importantly, the nature of the film. There's a tonal dissonance between the story and the way the filmmaker chooses to convey it.

When you look at some great period pieces like "There Will be Blood" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." to name a couple of modern examples, they have this harsh, grainy look to them, that works in favour of the immersion. Because whether we like it or not, our brains associate those kind of images with older periods. They have some beautiful shots in there too, but they are not trying to look pretty at every shot like Prey does. The grainy aspect look also adds an element of weight and tactility to a film. It makes them look cinematic. Prey doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a video game.

Those beautiful vista shots I called grainless and artificial, are not artificial because of what they show, they look artificial because of the way they are so overly enhanced in post-production and possible CGIed to some extent, to the point they look fake and weightless. They also serve no purpose other than showing off their production values. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, it makes sense for the movie to frequently cut to those types of vista shots, as it's a slow-paced drama about a man that wanted to see the beauty of the American frontier. In an action movie that's about a tribe of Comache Indian fighting against an intergalactic alpha hunter, what's the purpose of those endless beauty shots?

Maybe if the film only focused on the Comanches in the begging, it would make sense to give us a sense of their relationship with their environment, and to mark a shift in tone when the Predator appears. But given that we're frequently interrupted with scenes of the Predator from the begging, it kind of makes them pointless. 

And no, you don't have to artificially add grain in post-production to have a grainy look. The easiest way would have been to shoot it on film, in something like 16mm, which they probably didn't have the budget to it. But there are also ways to have more grainy shots with digital cameras, using higher ISO levels. To be correct, every camera captures some level of grain, even some of the most modern ones. What they never look like, is as clean and pristine as they do in Prey, that's for sure.

You're right in that the original Predator was shot in a Mexican jungle, but that's about all you're right. The original Predator is an ugly, harsh and grainy-looking movie. It's frequently under-exposed, with a limited colour palette and it never tries to draw the spectator's attention to the beauty of its surroundings. On the contrary, every image tries to convey the harshness and danger of the jungle. That's why almost every shot is at ground level with the group, and not from afar like in Prey, pretty and secure.

I'll end up by saying, that I understand and respect people liking those aspects of modern films. Personally, I detest the way most modern movies, and TV shows for that matter, try to look as pretty and pristine as possible even when at the expense of the story. For me is one of the clearest indications of how big corporations are trying to kill any sense of artistry or personality in modern entertainment.
I haven't watched Prey yet, but I absolutely 100% agree with most of this post. Jay from RLM said something similar too. I actually remarked about something similar the other day when I was watching something on TV, and without even knowing what it was, I asked "this is some shite off of Netflix, isn't it?". Needless to say, the answer was yes. The give away? How it looked. It was a shite horror film that had Brian Cox and the fella from Homeland in it. Don't know the name, but the most off putting thing about it was how garish and pristine it looked. Everything looked like it was perfectly framed, and over-lit. There was no grit to it. Nothing to indicate that there was someone with vision behind the camera. It was like a by the numbers template where everything looked surgically clean, giving it a veneer of falseness, like everything was just too perfect and digitally correct. Literally everything on Netflix that I've watched has this look to it, and I find it unappealing and disgusting to look at. By contrast, I was flicking through the TV a week or so ago, and came across Starsky and Hutch. I mistook it for a film because of the way it was shot. Gritty, realistic, imperfect, but yet perfect for the eyes. This is a TV show made in the 70's? Yet to me, it looked it had far more craft than the souless shite polluting these streaming services.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,118
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55038 on: August 12, 2022, 01:09:43 am »
this kinda gives me a vinyl vs digital downlad vibe, it's almost like reading/having the same conversation

that's aesthetics for you

the rabbit hole of all rabbit holes
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 01:28:47 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,927
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55039 on: August 12, 2022, 02:01:44 am »
i disagree with most of that and you're assuming cos a widlerness is pristine it's not harsh - here's a head's up, all wilderness is harsh, all, no matter the beauty (i recall on its release Last of the Mohicans being criticised in exactly the same way as you see Prey, didn't agree with that assessment, dont agree with this one either)

the harsh and gritty nature of Predator in contrast to Prey are the characters more so than scenery - both are harsh challenging environments in different ways (sure, thick jungle is harsher) and i beg to differ that lush jungle isn't pretty (it is in my eyes, on film including Predator and in real life) - contrast the characters of Prey with badass veteran mercenaries and you have a totally different ambience, they bring the gnarly aspect to Predator
I disagree completely with that. Every decision in Predator is made, from the casting to the cinematography, to make the universe look as harsh and dangerous as possible. It's not just one element, it's all of them. And sorry, but are Comanches supposed to look nice and unthreatening? They were one, if not the most feared and brutal Native American tribe. So that point doesn't really stick.

and who said anything about adding grain in post production? you actually quote me saying 'cinematic camera choices' when talking about adding grain and then 'school' me on that very thing?   ???

I didn't try to school you on anything, but to be fair, that sentence was very hard to comprehend. You didn't say adding grain on post-production, no, but that's the only way it can be implied and make sense. Because as I said, all cinema cameras capture images with a certain level of grain. It's in their nature. The cinematic camera choices, as you put it, will denote how much grain there will be. But that's a decision you make previous to filming. There's no "adding" to it, unless you mean on post-production. So when you ask "isn't adding 'grain' artificial?", it makes no sense by the way you frame the question, unless you mean the whole process of filmmaking is artificial. Which then makes the whole thing a moot point.







all pretty to me

i've no doubt Predator is shot the way it is cos that's what the director wanted but he is also limited by thick jungle, not a lot of choice there for the majority of his movie, it doesn't lend itself to big open vistas (tho there are wider relatively big type shots when the scenery lends itself), but clearly not in the range of LOTM, DWW and Prey with their more open vistas which allow for that

and as you point out, ground level (often tilited up) shots did convey what he wanted in this impenetrable, claustraphobic, world of hurt as blain would say, arguably catching as much of the wilderness he's working with (a clever way to maximise the jungle scenery, a good shout), the director of those other movies did likewise with their movies

I think we have fundamentally different views about movies and what constitutes a pretty shot. I don't think of any of those as "pretty", and I don't mean to "school you" but that first frame has been clearly saturated with some image editing software. Well shot? of course. Good and efficient blocking? Betcha. But not pretty, not unless you think pointing the camera in the general direction of nature, makes for a pretty shot. I watched The Last of the Mohicans recently btw, and I had none of those complaints because it makes sense for that film to be pretty, in a cinematic way, not like in a video game.

you just dont like the fact it looks pretty cos you see that as frivilous to the story content, we'll have to disagree on that,
like i said, heard it all before with LOTM, it was wrong then, it's wrong now for me, but it's aesthetics, whenever does that get full agreement? never

I think I know and have articulated my thoughts well enough why I don't like the way that Prey looks. You might disagree, that's perfectly fine, but I certainly don't need you to tell me what I think. Especially not in such a reductive simplistic way.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 02:27:10 am by Lastrador »